DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/01/2026 has been entered.
Applicant’s Submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of a response was received on 04/01/2026. Presently, claims 1-15 are pending. Applicant is reminded of their duty to properly mark-up the claims as required by 37 CFR 1.121 (c)(2). Applicant has provided no mark-up at all even though the claims have been amended. However, in order to expedite prosecution, the claims have been treated as if they were properly marked up. Applicant is reminded to comply with 37 CFR 1.121 in future responses.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a method incorporating timing sensitive logic and data synchronization for a distributed wagering system (certain methods of organizing human activity), the method comprising: receiving via a communication circuit, from a first user of a plurality of users, a wager on an event, the wager including a total wager amount (mental process; certain methods of organizing human activity); responsive to receiving the wager, executing (certain methods of organizing human activity), by at least one processor, a distributed transaction process incorporating multiple systems, including: determining via the at least one processor (i) a first portion of the total wager amount as a book wager between the first user and a book, defining as a first wager solely between the first user and the book, (mental process; certain methods of organizing human activity), and (ii) a second wager a portion of the total wager amount, defning as a second wager, as a pool wager between the book and a pool, defining as a second wager solely between the book and the pool, wherein the book and pool are implemented as book and pool systems respectively thereby providing a seamless single-wager experience when the wager is partially hedged via the pool in the background (mental process; certain methods of organizing human activity); concurrently transmitting with less than a threshold time delay, via two transmission executed by the communication circuit the first portion to the book system and the second portion to the pool system, to cause synchronized formation of the book and pool wagers on the book and pool systems, respectively (certain methods of organizing human activity and/or extra solution activity)and setting and maintaining the wager in an irrevocable locked data-state during the concurrently transmitting, such that the irrevocable locked data-state is maintained until a predetermined release condition is detected (certain methods of organizing human activity) wherein finalization of the book wager is delayed until receiving, by the book, a transmission indicating finalization of odds by the pool system for the pool wager, so that the book and pool systems have matching odds for the wager (certain methods of organizing human activity), and wherein the predetermined release condition is met by the communication circuit receiving the transmission from the pool system indicating the finalization of the odds (certain methods of organizing human activity); and resolving (i) the book wager and the pool wager based on an outcome of the event and (ii) when the outcome is a win, calculating via the at least one processor a payment proportion to the odds of the pool wager and the first portion of the total wager amount in the book wager (mental process; certain methods of organizing human activity). Here each of these steps listed as a mental process could be done in the mind or using pen and paper because a user could determine the wager according to portions and then set the odds of the book wager to match those of the pool. The claims above are found to also be certain methods of organizing human activity because each of the above elements are set as rules for managing a wagering game which as noted in the MPEP is considered to be an abstract idea (See 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A) and in particular, (ii)). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims are, at best, just applied to a generic computing environment that is the claims are just applied to a generic processor. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements is a processor found only in the preamble to the claim and this additional elements is only generic computing components which the Supreme Court in Alice determined is not sufficient to bring claims into patent eligibility.
All dependent claims have been analyzed but they do not cure the deficiencies of the independent claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant first argues that the claims do not cite an abstract idea. Applicant seems to be of this believe because their claims allow a user to have one bet that is then split into multiple wagers (See Arguments, page 8). Applicant seems to be of this believe because it will enhance the user’s experience (See Arguments, page 8). However, such a reasoning finds not support in the law. Furthermore, Applicant has amended the claims to provide for hedging, the entire abstract idea that started the Alice case. Thus, Applicant’s arguments regarding this subject are not found convincing.
Applicant’s only other arguments appear to be that because there is no 35 USC 102 or 103 rejection that the claims must therefore be patentable. Applicant is reminded that the MPEP and the courts are specifically clear on this: Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. The distinction between eligibility (under 35 U.S.C. 101 ) and patentability over the art (under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103 ) is further discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d) (MPEP 2106.05).
As such, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jay Liddle whose telephone number is (571)270-1226. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571)272-4430. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Jay Trent Liddle/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights